Originally Posted By Darkbeer From today's WSJ Political Diary >>Ned Lamont's campaign has selected the wrong Connecticut city to pick a fight with. Last week, Tom Swan, Mr. Lamont's campaign manager, lashed out at working-class Waterbury, the state's fifth-largest city, after hearing it had overwhelmingly backed Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Mr. Swan described Waterbury, a place that has seen several of its politicians go to jail, as a city "where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil." Mr. Lamont has apologized for the remark, but not soon enough to prevent a slashing editorial entitled "Ned Lamont's True Colors" in the Waterbury Republican-American last Sunday. The newspaper unloaded rhetoric seldom seen these days. The editorial began: "Liberal journalists adore [Mr. Lamont] because they share his world view on abortion, homosexual marriage, universal health care, racial quotas, loopy environmentalism and especially the war against Islamic terrorism. They are blood brothers, or more accurately, fellow travelers... If you shake Mr. Lamont's family tree, a lot of Red apples will fall." The paper goes on to claim that Mr. Lamont's great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, was a "wealthy progressive pacifist... the sugar daddy for the American Communist Party and other extreme left-wing organizations." His son, Corliss Lamont, in turn was "an unapologetic Stalinist and atheist. Congress once declared him 'probably the most persistent propagandist for the Soviet Union to be found anywhere in the United States.'" The paper claimed that Corliss's nephew, Mr. Lamont's father, also "embraced liberal-socialism and passed his religious devotion to atheistic materialism along to his son." Mr. Lamont declined to comment on the paper's charges. His campaign notes that his father, Ted, was a Republican economist who served in the Nixon administration. That said, the Waterbury paper's discussion of Corliss Lamont should serve as a cautionary reminder of how gently history has treated real Communist fellow travelers. A founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, Corliss Lamont was indeed a notorious apologist for Stalin. The New York Times reported in 1938: "Corliss Lamont, chairman of the American Friends of the Soviet Union, charged yesterday that the [John] Dewey commission, which recently requested postponement of the current [purge] trial in Moscow, had 'abandoned even the pretense of impartiality.'" Indeed, long after Stalin's crimes had been condemned by his old Politburo comrades, Sidney Hook, a noted liberal scholar, wrote Lamont in 1966 to upbraid him for "your thunderous silence as our charges against Stalin were being confirmed." As interesting as all this family history is, it isn't really relevant to the Senate race this fall. Here's hoping that the feud between Mr. Lamont's campaign and the Waterbury paper is patched up so that issues of more immediacy to the voters of Connecticut take center stage. -- John Fund<<
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < A founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, Corliss Lamont was indeed a notorious apologist for Stalin. < this alone ought to start the onslaught - but really if 50% of that family 'history' is close it is a concern...I am sure it will sort itself out soon ...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^ the stuff that concerns me most obviosuly is the communist activity stuff-- both from a standpoint that if true I don't like it, and also from the standpoint that after the whole McCarthy deal, how much faith do we have in what is true or not. Either way this mis step by his campaign head will keep him a nobody no more....
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I don't think I can recall such Republican interest in a Democratic primary, ever. You'd think they lost a general election or something.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, Lieberman was on the Presidential ticket not so long ago. I think it justifies national interest.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 My interest stems from the fact that I thought Joe Lieberman actually was a threat to defeat the GOP when he ran.( believed Gore was the problem on the ticket) ..obviously I was wrong as he is far too mainstream to even win his parties primary...my bad
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^ SPP you know why itis so interesting, because if Joe Lieberman is way to right of the rest of the party when he appears to be in the middle somewhere - then it sets up the profile the GOP wants to paint of the DEM party today and who is controlling it. As someone who could vote either way, I can tell you to me it is an issue..
Originally Posted By Beaumandy My interest is that the Senate doesn't need a cut and run liberal like Ned Lamont, a guy Al Quaida would vote for. Lierberman mkes the country safer if he is in office.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I would think a moderate would really like Lieberman. He is down the middle. I like him because he is strong on the war on terror. His other liberal habits can be forgiven.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I do see Lieberman as a moderate..not sure I'd classify anything as liberal -- I had this link ( I thought I put in another post about his supporters changed and not Joe) but I must have screwed up somehow. read joe's stance on items here in 1990 - he is the same guy today - the party that supports him is what has changed. It's an interesting read as I see Joe L as a 1960's democrat, but not fitting with where the party has been lately. <a href="http://www.policyreview.org/summer90/lieberman.html" target="_blank">http://www.policyreview.org/su mmer90/lieberman.html</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Joe is the same guy. He still votes 90% with the democrats. Teh democrat party has gone waaaaaaaaaay left. That is why I attack them everyday. REad Zell Millers book about how the party left him. It is a great read.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I'mnot sure I put Zell Miller's views and Joe Lieberman's views on the same page...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Zell Miller is old school. He is Scoop Jackson. Lieberman is much more liberal than Zell... but both of them are great on national defense.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd The known traitor, joe liberman is hated by all real democrats. That fact that this saudi arabian sellout, told gore to toss in the towel to the known traitors is a verified fact. He is a sick criminal. He is being excised.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd My god i remember the debate with cheney and liberman, i have it on dvd. Sick, sick stuff. It's just so sick of him to continue after his covert republican operation has been exposed. Liberman is to the democrats, what the known liar, katherine harris is to the republicans.... sad leftover's from past manipulations.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Oh wait a minute liberman is exactly the same as katherine harris, because they are both republicans.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Earth to moonbat... come in... Lieberman isn't GIVING AWAY national security secrets like the libs at the NY Times and the ACLU. Those are the traitors, or is that to hard to figure out? Wanna take a poll Ed. Question: Who is a bigger traitor to the USA? NY Times and it's liberal staff. or Joe Lieberman You get blown out of the water again.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Ed, want to bet on the Lieberman race in November? I will bet you DL annual passes he wins. After all, a traitor like Lieberman can't really win if he is not a real democrat can he? Are you up to it? We can put the money in a Neteller account or Paypal.
